These are called “chilling effects,” they cause people to self censor when it comes to socially controversial positions. Historically, this would include womens suffrage, black rights, gay rights, various religious positions…
It’s not okay to be tracked so thoroughly that people stop feeling they can explore controversy online
On top of that: anonymity should not be required to explore controversy at all. That’s the chilling effect. The issue is that as a society we have failed royally to internalize tolerating freedom of expression. Instead we choose to censor and silence people who wish to explore controversy even though we have laws in place that protect one’s freedom to express themselves however they desire without damaging recourse to their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Anonymity is certainly a tool that can be used in dire situations when there are real credible threats and the stakes are high. However it takes a certain type of courage to express oneself freely which would be really nice to see in the majority of all other situations. Instead of exploring controversy anonymously, we should aim as a society to explore it normally and simply build up the intellectual maturity and capacity to tolerate controversy like adults and not children…
In short, I don't want to live in a society where everyone is anonymous. That doesn't sound very social at all and doesn't work at scale. I want to live in a society where I can build strong respectful adult relationships with people and not immediately judge, shun, and twitter mob someone who says they don't 100% agree with my lifestyle. Tolerating differences in viewpoints and lifestyles is true diversity. Diversity is not finding people with different physical features who all actually think the same and putting them on a magazine cover or in the same office together.
I don't want to live in a society where exploration and discussion of taboo ideas risks my livelihood. Short of somehow inducing massive change in the way most people think about things, anonymity is the only way to achieve that.
I wonder which elements of your "lifestyle" would get you shunned, or disinherited, or imprisoned, or killed for your family's honor. I enjoy almost perfect intersectional privilege, and one of those privileges has been to use my full real Googlable name on all my social media accounts, specifically because I want to be accountable for what I say, and because I've always believed that nothing about my real identity imperils me. (I'm a little less sure, recently, that liberal atheists and our allies will be safe from the American pogroms to come. Too late now!)
the cameras that track your every movement inside a supermarket (plus the software that labels your image with a unique identifier) have you pinned down pretty well already, no need for nametags.
Being gratuitously anti-social in a pub or supermarket already has consequences, name tags or not (you'll get kicked out). It doesn't matter if people know your name or not, they'll recognize your face, and you might not be welcome back.
Being gratuitously anti-social online might also have consequences (your account gets banned), but if creating another anonymous account is free and easy, then the consequences are trivially ignored.
You could make a distinction between anonymity and ease-of-creating-new-accounts, but usually the two are tied together.
To give an example of this, I lived in a municipality where most community-driven things were organized on Facebook, including government-driven initiatives.
I won't participate in them using my real name, because I once witnessed the mayor of the town doxx and lead a campaign to harass a single mother because she disagreed with the majority party that's run the town for the last 40 years. She got dogpiled on by hundreds of residents for participating in a discussion on Facebook.
It wasn't an isolated incident either, other people have had the same experience and even felt the need to move after it happened because some people took it to an extreme and felt the need to harass them for months afterwards.
Maybe, but the entire county is run by the good ol' boys network. Good luck getting the police to investigate or charge the mayor, and good luck in court.
Part of the chilling effect is the incentive against pursuing justice in cases like this. The single mother was already publicly targeted and made unsafe, chances are that the public targeting will get even worse if she pursued justice against her harassers.
These same people in power who led this campaign against her have sycophants in the local media who have no problem using their wide reach to smear dissenters like they do every election season, even for minor Board of Ed elections.
Laws only work when law enforcement and criminal justice cares to enforce them and/or when the wronged party has enough resources to sue in a venue where law enforcement and criminal justice will care.
I don't feel I have any difficulty airing positions I feel online without anonymity. I sometimes end up arguing, but rarely in bad faith. I stand by what I say, though my views now may be different to those of previous me and I'm happy to debate that too. If you can't stand by a position, maybe you shouldn't air it.
It isn't about not standing by a position, it is about the potential of attracting the attention of a small extremist minority that will spend outsize effort trying to destroy your life.
I'm glad that you feel secure enough in your position in life that you think you can weather such an attack, but not everyone is so lucky. Implying anyone who needs anonymity is simply holding an unreasonable position is simply not fair.
Not only that, but benign positions today might be totally taboo in 20 years, and when that time comes, they will be just an Internet search away. You have no idea whether something harmless you say today will be used to paint you as a terrible person decades from now. I think back to some of the stuff I said 20 years ago which at the time were entirely uncontroversial, that I'd get fired for if I said today.
That works well amongst equals. It fails when some have more power than others and can use that to hurt those others for things they disagree with.
E.g., this is why true democracy needs secret ballots. Perhaps you and I aren't afraid to vote in public. But a democracy needs everyone to give their honest vote, not only those who have nothing to fear.
Also an online privacy fan with (what probably amounts to) strict views. Eg.: privacy is a bit of a misnomer. It puts the focus on the person who can be wronged. In other crimes, we don't do that. A burglar is not the one whose house was burgled; a robber is not the one who was robbed.
Privacy isn't about me or my rights; it is about other people and limits on theirs. You're not allowed to take other people's money, why should you be allowed to take other people's data?
(1) Aside: I keep rereading the books. I found others that move me more, but I tend to move beyond them. Eddings writings manage to keep entertaining me. Not necessarily high-brow, but definitely entertaining and the entertainment doesn't peter out after the 3rd or so book (all too common in fantasy in my experience).
The intra-party banter is what makes them. I tend to call it "popcorn fantasy" but mean that positively (and the length of time he takes to set up the "who's turn is it to cook" gag is simply masterful).
Last time I played a Rogue in an AD&D game I used Silk as an archetype, and it worked out very nicely.
But context is king. The context of that particular quote, is that it came immediately after this:
> I stand by what I say, though my views now may be different to those of previous me and I'm happy to debate that too.
They were clearly talking about themselves, and a rule they apply to themselves.
That said, one of my "cleanup routines" for writing and posting, is I look for instances of "you," and often change it to "I" or "me."
I would have probably written it like so:
> If I can't stand by a position, maybe I shouldn't air it.
BTW: I apply the same philosophy to my own posting.
There's a very valid argument for online (and offline) anonymity, and I don't like the specious "If you aren't doing anything wrong, then you shouldn't have anything to hide." argument.
I just find using that as a fig leaf for trolling and stalking people is rather annoying, as that behavior actually puts the people that really need it, at risk.
Standing up for my Principles can sometimes be quite scary. I've risked losing jobs, for refusing to carry out orders that were unethical, and I am routinely attacked, here (but politely -this is HN, after all), for holding some of the views I hold.
> But context is king. The context of that particular quote, is that it came immediately after this
Yes, the context was a switch from first person to second person. The most reasonable and likely interpretation is not that it was an accident, but that the second person was intended to convey a statement about what people in general should do. E.I: "If one can't stand by a position maybe one shouldn't air it."
It is true that there is a trade off between anonymity and culpability, but that doesn't mean we don't need both. To my mind, we need anonymity to protect smaller scale participants and accountability for larger scale participants to limit abuse of power. I don't know how you achieve that in practice.
Its not standing by a decision, its the unknown risk of an adversary using information you thought private against you. Whether its abortion clinics, or prospective employers vetting your background. You won't know which opportunities were missed as a result of something in your record that may have happened 20 years ago. You'll probably think it isn't happening, until it impacts you personally, and then its too late. That's exactly how it happened in East Germany with the wall.
There needs to be a middle ground though. When people air opinions they're unwilling to change, any criticism(no matter how justified) will feel like a personal attack, and bad faith arguing will tend to be the result.
In other words, stand by your position, but also learn when to admit you were wrong.
In my case, that happens all the time. You probably won't have to search too far, to find me apologizing, admitting error, or finding a way to make amends.
It's a fundamental tenet of my way of life. I promptly admit when I'm wrong.
I've found the best way to avoid having to make amends, is to not cause the offense, in the first place. I tend to be fairly careful about keeping it in the "I," all the time (but no good deed goes unpunished -I am often told that "I'm making it all about me").
I do find that I get attacked, sometimes, right out of the blue, for stating personal philosophies and/or experiences. My fave is when I am told that something that happened to me "didn't actually happen." I assume that is because it is an inconvenient truth, for others. My experience, dealing with tech industry ageism, is a common fulcrum for that kind of response.
I've found the best way to avoid having to make amends is to not cause unintentional offence, certainly, and I've got (annoyingly) slowly better at it over the course of my life.
Sometimes, though, I absolutely -do- intend to offend somebody, and in that case I own it.
On the other hand, absolute freedom (and convenience) of expression for each of our disembodied and anonymized selves is problematic in the opposite way.
To bypass the sources of those chilling effects by remaining anonymous may in fact only allow them to grow stronger.
Chilling effects are not unequivocally bad though. When the speech in question is advocating for stripping away the civil rights of or committing genocidal acts against certain groups of people, I'd much rather that speech be chilled.
It’s not okay to be tracked so thoroughly that people stop feeling they can explore controversy online